As to Tommy Gold, it would seem that Gold became aware of the Russian's work because he was one of the few Western scientists that spoke and read fluent Russian. Gold was always one to think outside of the box. I suspect Tommy Gold thought this was very important scientific information that needed to be brought to the attention of Western scientific circles, but Tommy Gold being Tommy Gold, he didn't just want to pass along the scientific work of others, but wanted to put his own "stamp" of originality on Abiotic Oil theory.

When comparing the theory of Tommy Gold and of the Russians, there are distinct differences, some commenters suggest that Gold bastardized the Russian's work so he could claim it as his original work, but others think Gold conceived of the Deep Hot Biosphere based on his own ideas. I tend to the later position because Tommy Gold was one to always crave the limelight and he knew he couldn't generate as much attention and publicity by simply passing along other's work.

But on the whole, one should give Tommy Gold much latitude because he did use his reputation and prestige in Western scientific circles to publicize Abitoic Oil theory, which, while known in the West, was languishing in obscurity due to Western oil geologists insisting oil was a so-called "fossil" fuel. Tommy Gold enabled Abiotic Oil theory to get a serious hearing and consideration in Western scientific circles.

Tommy Gold broke the "code of silence" and brought Abiotic Oil theory unprecedented attention and publicity -- Tommy Gold brought Abiotic Oil theory into popular knowledge for many who had never heard of it. And that service needs to be recognized as a valuble contribution regardless of how he developed his ideas.

Micheal, as you point out, the recent oil discoveries in ultra-deep water and ultra-deep under the sea floor in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Brazil, and off the coast of West Africa, and, now, many other places has made it increasingly untenable to maintain the "fossil" fuel paradigm.

(Not that that has stopped the "usual suspects" from trying very hard to do just -- maintain the "fossil" fuel paradigm".)

For those interested in Abiotic Oil theory, I suggest the following website as a good place to start (see link below):

As long as it is perceived that oil is a biological product, it can be treated as a limited resource, justifying all the control & goodies that come along with that perception.Also, if it is shown that oil is abiotic, then "science" will take a hit, as one of the legs of uniformitarianism will be lost (oil doesn't take Millions of years to form).The ramifications of abiotic oil on modern power structures, as well as long standing scientific theories will not allow for it, whether its the truth or not.Of course, that never stopped the inquiring minds of these forums from seeking the truth Thankyou for the links

Tzunamii wrote:As long as it is perceived that oil is a biological product, it can be treated as a limited resource, justifying all the control & goodies that come along with that perception.Also, if it is shown that oil is abiotic, then "science" will take a hit, as one of the legs of uniformitarianism will be lost (oil doesn't take Millions of years to form).The ramifications of abiotic oil on modern power structures, as well as long standing scientific theories will not allow for it, whether its the truth or not.Of course, that never stopped the inquiring minds of these forums from seeking the truth Thankyou for the links

Yes, there is much truth to your comment.

In my discussion/debates at other websites regarding Abiotic Oil theory, there is almost always a panorama of objectors to Abiotic Oil theory. Some are "doomers" that refuse to have their "doom" spoiled (I include "peak" oil advocates in the "doomer" label), some are "global warmers" who want to use "peak" oil as a justification for moving beyond oil, some are investors and speculators in oil who see general knowledge of increased oil supplies as a threat to their investments and schemes, some are oil geologists who can't stomach the idea they have been wrong about the origin of oil all these years (or specifically, make their living off some discovery technique dependent on oil being a "fossil" fuel), some are just your average Joes that always defend the status quo because they have been brought up thinking oil is a "fossil" fuel.

The "establishment" (power structure) is comfortable as it is, and doesn't want to see that changed, I agree, but many people in the know and in high places understand oil is abiotic.

(My own personal opinion is that the knowledge of abiotic oil is not near as threatening to the "establishment" as many in the "establishment" probably think.)

Here is a good summary of some of the issues surrounding abiotic oil, specifically the recharging of oil fields over time (see link below):

The world-wide reserves of oil and gas were analyzed by Lasaga & Holland (1971) from both the perspectives of BOOP ["fossil" fuel theory] and an abiotic origin of petroleum. By their estimates, the maximum quantity of crude oil that could have been produced by all biological matter on Earth could be represented by a thin 2.5mm film uniformly covering the Earth’s surface. Their estimates of the quantity of crude oil that could be produced abiologically could be represented by a thick 10km (!) layer uniformly covering the surface of the Earth. This difference estimates that abiotic petroleum must be at least 8 million times greater than could ever be expected from BOOP. Thus modern petroleum science predicts, even by the early estimates of Lasaga & Holland, that there exist tremendous quantities of petroleum, sufficient for the needs of humanity for thousands of years.

Whether the, above, illustration of the difference between the two theories is exagerated or not, it still provides a glimpse of the startling difference in oil & natural gas supplies world-wide according to the two theories.

This reality is cause for optimism, as is the reality of Plasma Cosmology because while there is no prospect for imminent collapse of civilization due to energy shortages, there is also a great potential for increased electrical energy supplies due to the concepts of plasma physics and the Sun - Earth electromagnetic dynamics that Man has not begun to tap into, but with technology advances, can be tapped into and harnessed for the benefit of Mankind (many forum members sign off with a quote from Tesla, that is apt as he was the first to understand the potential energy available to Mankind because of the inherent structure and dynamics of the Sun - Earth electromagnetic relationship).

The potential is still practicably limitless...

And that is a very good thing

Last edited by Anaconda on Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:14 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Grey Cloud wrote:Abiotic oil would also put another nail in Velikovsky's coffin. Didn't he say oil (hydrocarbons) came from Venus?

I believe He said as much, but that it may have been produced through electrical interactions is significant, if oil production is shown to be abiotic, then we know Velikovsky was at least thinking in the right direction.Perhaps the same electrical stresses that may produce oil in the earth, were present at the meeting of Earths & Venuses electrical environments, & produced a variety of things, including some oil.Doesn't sound like a nail to me, but a strong hypothesis.

Last edited by Tzunamii on Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think abiotic oil/hydrocarbon production is an inherent aspect of EU theory.

The following abstracts seem to support the EU/abiotic connection:

Many hydrocarbon species have been detected in the atmosphere of Titan. It is possible that lightning activity is occurring in the troposphere and that it contributes to the hydrocarbon inventory. Measurements of the chemical yields of hydrogen cyanide, acetylene, ethylene, ethane, and propane from simulated lightning discharges are reported. A comparison of the experimental results with those based on thermodynamic equilibrium assumptions shows significant disagreement and implies that theories based solely on thermodynamic equilibrium are inadequate. Although photochemistry and charged particle chemistry occurring in the stratosphere can account for many of the observed hydrocarbon species, the predicted abundance of ethylene is too low by a factor of 10 to 40. While some ethylene will be produced by charged-particle chemistry, the production of ethylene by lightning and its subsequent diffusion into the stratosphere appears to be an adequate source.

And...

By mass spectrometry of residual gas in UHV-arc-chambers a cycle of production of methane has been found for clean electrodes, consisting in release of hydrogen during the arc, its re-adsorption on freshly formed metal surfaces, followed by surface reactions of hydrogen with carbon impurities, and finally desorption of the resulting methane at room temperature after the arc. Existing methane is decomposed in part during an arc. In the pressure region 10-4 Pa most of the residual gas is transformed to CH4 if the electrodes contain metals with high gettering activity.

Although this second abstract is dealing with ultra-high vacuum, I think it gives validity for the possibility of persistent electric discharge in a high pressure, dense plasma (magma) being the causation for abiotic oil/hydrocarbon production.Have any experiments been conducted in this regard?.

I know they've used heat and pressure in abiotic research, but what if electric current (think telluric currents) were added to the mix?

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"Nikola Tesla

Tzunamii wrote:Also, if it is shown that oil is abiotic, then "science" will take a hit, as one of the legs of uniformitarianism will be lost (oil doesn't take Millions of years to form).

But if it is scientifically shown to be true, and accepted in scientific circles (and communicated to the public in a way that makes rational sense), then science will get a point back and it will be a wash. "Sure, we've gotten it wrong in the past, but now we're getting it RIGHT." Surely, it takes reputable voices crying out in dissent. But isn't that inevitably what science is about (Self-correction via dissent, etc.)? ...

~Michael Gmirkin

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke"For every PhD there is an equal and oppositePhD." ~Gibson's law

Tzunamii wrote:Also, if it is shown that oil is abiotic, then "science" will take a hit, as one of the legs of uniformitarianism will be lost (oil doesn't take Millions of years to form).

But if it is scientifically show to be true, and accepted in scientific circles (and communicated to the public in a way that makes rational sense), then science will get a point back and it will be a wash. "Sure, we've gotten it wrong in the past, but now we're getting it RIGHT." Surely, it takes reputable voices crying out in dissent. But isn't that inevitably what science is about (Self-correction via dissent, etc.)? ...

~Michael Gmirkin

Yes, Michael, in my opinion you are right on.

In Science, it is NEVER too late to revise or correct Man's understanding of physical relationships and processes in Nature.

And reputable voices are getting publicity ever so slowly, but surely, just like Plasma Cosmology

Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle —the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced online issue of Nature Geoscience.

Now, actually this has been known for some time and was reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum, 2002 (see link below):

But, hey I'll take this report. It should be noted also that the ScienceDaily repeats the "fossil" theory at the head of it's article, so erroneous ideas are still being propagated by the media, but progress is being made as I type

The key factor for the “oil window” is temperature. Supposedly, the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds (Heinberg) and also just as important keep oil from forming in the first place.

Here is the link to the Bloomberg report of 500 degree Fahrenheit temperatures. April 28 (Bloomberg) — “Brazil’s plan to become one of the world’s biggest oil exporters hinges on exploiting crude 6 miles below the ocean surface in deposits so hot they can melt the metal used to carry uranium to nuclear plants.” (See link below:)

Accepted theory of oil's "fossil" fuel formation is quite clear that oil can't form in the type of temperatures that exist in the ultra-deep water, ultra-deep drilling geological formations where oil has now been found. The theory has been falsified by observation & measurement.

I've had discussions with "debunkers", and their only recourse was to accuse the publications of lying or misstating the facts because the reports so clearly contradicted the accepted "oil window" corollary of "fossil fuel's formation.

It should also be noted that these oil bearing geological formations are below a salt barrier up to several thousand kilometers thick, which in earlier days of the off shore drilling industry was called the "salt abyss" because no oil was thought possible to form below the salt layer, which is, itself, up to, if not deeper than 15,000 feet below the sea floor. This salt barrier is not the product of evaporation in shallow seas, but supercritical water processes where salt precipitates out of the water because of the intense pressure as such depts below the sea floor. Clearly, the oil rose up from below the salt barrier (see link below on supercritical water hydrothermal salt deposition):

Prof Gold also proposed (circa 1980?) that Io was experiencing electric discharge maching which was mistakenly being identified as geysers.

...the difficulty other NASA scientists had in seeing the electrical activity on Jupiter’s moon Io, even after eminent astrophysicists and plasma scientists (Thomas Gold, Anthony Peratt, and Alex Dessler) had given them sound scientific reason for seeing this electrical activity.

Five hundred degrees Fahrenheit melts...what? Not much. That's a respectable temperature and all, but I bake bread at ~350-400, so if 500 F is metal melting, I'll have to rethink my position on 9/11...and get a new oven.

Even 500 C won't melt many metals.

Do they mean Kelvin? No, that's only ~440 F.

What are they saying?

Don't mean to nitpick, but...

The fossil origin of oil theory does not seem to fit the facts.

Totally agree! Many theories do not seem to fit the facts. There is one that does, though...something to do with an electric universe.

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"Nikola Tesla